Reduction in number of NR deer licenses

[Big Fin]

It is interesting how this change is being viewed or reported on. It is a reduction of current numbers, but those current numbers were part of a plan to circumvent the statutory 17,000 NR licenses.

What is missing is history and details of the plan that was hatched to circumvent the 17,000 cap by adding 5,000 of the orphaned deer licenses of people who requested "elk only" as the option, rather than the standard elk/deer combination license. Many residents stated it would add 5,000 more pairs of boots in the hills, which it did.

Even with this change, it still leaves 2,500 orphaned deer licenses out there, which is still above the original 17,000 NR combination licenses so many like to claim is the NR cap in Montana. Add in the Full-Time College Student license, the Native Montana license, and the Come Home To Hunt Licenses, and we are well above the 17,000 we've always been told is the Montana NR number.

We are unlike CO, WY, NM, AZ, UT, NV, OR who all set the NR numbers as a % of the total tag quota for most species in their state. By law, Montana must offer that large amount of NR licenses, even if we only had 1,000 elk or 1,000 deer in the entire state.

When the legislature started finding ways to circumvent the 17,000 cap about 20 years ago, comments were made of what the impact would be. Those opposing the "workarounds" the legislature crafted asked that these new license categories be taken out of the 17,000. Nope, all these new NR license categories were additive, no compensatory.

This rolls back a portion of that, but the majority of those additive NR licenses are still going to be issued.

 

[SAJ-99]

We have to check in every deer we shoot at the check station. During firearm season.

But your firearm season isn’t 5 wks long. I have to think that check stations are inefficient from a cost perspective. Very much so when you don’t collect any useful data like Montana.

 

[Nick87]

But your firearm season isn’t 5 wks long. I have to think that check stations are inefficient from a cost perspective. Very much so when you don’t collect any useful data like Montana.

17 days spread across 5 seasons. Probably wasn't that many days when you left. Even less efficient when your illinois and go through all the trouble and money to collect that data then turn around and wipe your ass with it. Thats about as polite as I can put it.

 

[Dave N]

We have to check in every deer we shoot at the check station. During firearm season.

Just to clarify, you only have to go to a check station if you kill a deer in one of the designated CWD counties. All others can be reported online.

 

[Nick87]

Just to clarify, you only have to go to a check station if you kill a deer in one of the designated CWD counties. All others can be reported online.

Yahlles. They're all cwd counties up here and they're coming your way every year.

 

[brownbear932008]

Based on this post, the right number of non resident licenses would be 12,757.

There’s currently about 17,366 too many NR licenses being sold if we subscribe to the well accepted standard that NR should not exceed 10% of license totals.

I totally support cutting R opportunity but it’s hard to deny that removing 17k+ NR wouldn’t make a huge difference in eastern Montana.

But playing devils advocate here, based on @Gerald Martin post 10% of tags, total would be 19377 and that's only general tags I'm assuming in those numbers not including permits.
Bottom line is this, the MTFWP dishes out to many deer tags across the board and needs to go full draw for both parties if we want to see a true change in numbers.

One can clearly see in that post the doe tags jumped from one group right to the other.

 

[thusby]

Montana does not have a huntable population of mule deer. Most of your whitetail are gone too.

 

[El Jason]

Montana does not have a huntable population of mule deer.

 

[Dave N]

Yahlles. They're all cwd counties up here and they're coming your way every year.

Yeah, 2 neighbor counties are included. Basically, right across the road. Don't know if I'll looks for a spot next year or not.

 

[Nick87]

Yeah, 2 neighbor counties are included. Basically, right across the road. Don't know if I'll looks for a spot next year or not.

I wouldn't let that stop you.

 

[jimh406]

Montana does not have a huntable population of mule deer. Most of your whitetail are gone too.

I'm not sure what you mean by huntable unless you are joking. It's common to see plenty of them dead on the roads in Montana.

 

[Gerald Martin]

It is interesting how this change is being viewed or reported on. It is a reduction of current numbers, but those current numbers were part of a plan to circumvent the statutory 17,000 NR licenses.

What is missing is history and details of the plan that was hatched to circumvent the 17,000 cap by adding 5,000 of the orphaned deer licenses of people who requested "elk only" as the option, rather than the standard elk/deer combination license. Many residents stated it would add 5,000 more pairs of boots in the hills, which it did.

Even with this change, it still leaves 2,500 orphaned deer licenses out there, which is still above the original 17,000 NR combination licenses so many like to claim is the NR cap in Montana. Add in the Full-Time College Student license, the Native Montana license, and the Come Home To Hunt Licenses, and we are well above the 17,000 we've always been told is the Montana NR number.

We are unlike CO, WY, NM, AZ, UT, NV, OR who all set the NR numbers as a % of the total tag quota for most species in their state. By law, Montana must offer that large amount of NR licenses, even if we only had 1,000 elk or 1,000 deer in the entire state.

When the legislature started finding ways to circumvent the 17,000 cap about 20 years ago, comments were made of what the impact would be. Those opposing the "workarounds" the legislature crafted asked that these new license categories be taken out of the 17,000. Nope, all these new NR license categories were additive, no compensatory.

This rolls back a portion of that, but the majority of those additive NR licenses are still going to be issued.

My numbers may be a bit off and I am going from memory but the last time I added up all the in excess of NR cap licenses that you listed above I think I came up with right around 32,600 NR hunters with either sex deer or elk or deer/elk licenses. That’s not including any NR hunters who held only antlerless elk or antlerless deer.

By my quick math, that’s an overage 43% over what is supposed to be a NR cap of 23,600 hunters who hold either a B-10 or B-11 license.

 

[huntin24/7]

The more I learn about what many other states do to collect data, proactively manage to get ahead of problems, and put the resource first(or at least not last), I’m kind of speechless how we compare.

 

[Gerald Martin]

The more I learn about what many other states do to collect data, proactively manage to get ahead of problems, and put the resource first(or at least not last), I’m kind of speechless how we compare.

But we’re first in having the Legislature attempting to pass or passing wildlife management law rather than letting FWP and the Commission decide what Montana residents want for management of their wildlife resources.

So we do have that going for us…

 

[huntin24/7]

But we’re first in having the Legislature attempting to pass or passing wildlife management law rather than letting FWP and the Commission decide what Montana residents want for management of their wildlife resources.

So we do have that going for us…

I think our legislature as a whole cares almost nothing for the resource beyond the money it can make.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I think our legislature as a whole cares almost nothing for the resource beyond the money it can make.

Not true. They also care about how much hunting opportunity they can give to their constituents…. ^^^^^ but I guess that’s the same as what you said.